The Sun. — London, England, 1808-12-22 00:00:00

~~~-. I._ , `TP R:I.PORT. COL , Itt . OP BENCH. GUILDt-iALL; bze.-ti. STEIN ACII V. br. LA COCR. This Was‘'an aelion an ft Policy of Insnrance.. Orl the ship Canopus, from the Baltic to lorway - , -Which wa:. lost 1 the perils of the sea. The de fence set up eras, that she Was not sea-Worthy. The as a foreigner, waS Called ; he proved ih*t she was a new ship, and perfortiled her frrgt ;troy i;e very well. The next voyage to Nor‘i , ay she i!.11:2d. and niti,nately made so much water that thel Were forced to her into port. On examining her there Were three libles as large as Anger holes in her ~.';atoin. It appealed .as the trunnions had tiorte , l, but they h:rd received no shock or any stress of weather which could have beat them from their places. GAartow, for the Defendant, contended, th e have been unsea-worthy frow her building, and that these boles must have been left open originally. He accounted for the ship making no water in the first voyage, by the sheathing pro teding the holes, but that not being able long to re sist the, sea, it of course flowed through* the boles when that thin defence gave way. The Jury found for the Defendant. COURT OF CHANCERY, DFc. ro. A PRIZE IN THE LOTTERY. SWIFT ih IIORI':.ISBY. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY moved that the Defendant might be ordered to pay into Court the sum of 6151. t2s. Gd. being the - -sixteenth share of a Lottery. Ticket, that was entitled to a prize of tO,OOOl. in the English Lottery of the year 1803. He stated, that the Plaintiff had been a , livery-servant in the service of James Taylor, Esq, of Southampton - ; the Defendant kept a Lottery Office in this city, and had an agent, of the name of Skelton, for the per pose of disposing of Tickets in Southampton. In the year 1503, the Plaintiff purchased a Sixteenth from Skelton, about a week before the drawing titimmenced; - in two days afterwards it was stolen from him, and one of his fellow-servants was sus pected of the theft. The Plaintiff went to - Mr. Skelton, and informed him of 'his loss, and that he wa. not certain what the number was, but it was eniier No 26,280, or 26,880. Mr. Skelton in formed him, that he was the Detendants's Agent, and the best thing he could do was, to write to him on the subje6t, and Skelton took a ruemoraedum in his book (" Lost Sixteenth, either 2,6,280, or 26,880 Taylor, Esq.") Accordingly, on the 26th of April, 1903, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defen dant, stating, he had purchased a bixteeath of a tickrt, N 0.26,880, from Or. Skelton, which he had lost, and requesting, . that the Defendant would assist him in recovering as it made hitt) and the person suspected extrewely uneasy. The Defeti v4ant sent au answer, dated the 27th, that - No. X 6,880 Was nut one, of his shares.—On the 28th of April, No. 26,28 a was drawn a prize of 10,0001. On the Same day, the Petendant wrote to inform Skelton, that he had the pleasure of informing him that he (Skelton) had sold a sixteenth of that prize. Skel ton answered that letter, stating he had sold it to the' Plaintiff, a livery servant ut Mr. Taylor, but who had unfortunately lost it. Mr. Skelton, insti gated by humanity, did not inform the Plaintiff, but waited on his master, Mr. Taylor, and acquaint ed- him with the circumstances, who directed his betler, a person of the name of Brundrett, to write tb the Defendant to the followieg purport, dated May 1 " Christopher Smith bought the sixteenth of a lottery ticket froin Mr. Skethm, which he has lost, but the number of which he believes is 26,25,, the late fortunate ticket. From the known respectability of your Itouse, I have no doubt but you will facilitate the recovery of it, and it tender ed, you will have it stopped, and give notice to yours, &c. ROBERT I.II(UNVRE'I t." On the 3d of May the Defendant sent the follow ing answer—That a share of a lottery ticket being negociable and payable like a bank note, it was very hard to retrace it, but he would do what was in his power. In the year 1805, the Plaintiff filed a bill of di,covery, and in June 1808 tiled a further bill, praying relief. The Defendant, in his first answer, says, he believed, that on the 15th of May, 1 8 03, the share that was sold at Southampton was paid at the Office in London, by one of his clerks, who did not, as he believed, make any inquiry, and that it Was direetly destroyed, as was customary in lottery transactions ; he admitted that one sixteenth never had been paid or demande.l, but he believed it was Rot the one sold at Southampton ; there were pri vate numbers put upon shares, and entered in his book ; that the share sent to Southampton, had a private mark of the number 850, and that paid had the same number. In his subsequent answer he denies that he ought to have given the Plaintiff any notice of its being tendered, as he had no power to refuse the payment, and particularly so, as the number was not sworn to by the Plaintiff'. Ile admitted that he did not give any direetiuns to his clerk to stop, or make any inquiry ; and he also admitted that he was un able to swear positively that the sixteenth which has not been tendered, and retnans unpaid, was nut the one purchased by the Plaintiff. - Under these circum stances, Sir Samuel Romilly trusted his Lordship would order the money to be paid into Court. It could be no hardship on the Defendant ; for even if the Plain-tiff failed in making out Ins case, the De fendant was only the trustee of some one, for the money did not belong to him. Mr. Taylor, the master of the Plaintiff, had offered to indemnity ilia) three-fold ; and he held an affidavit of the Plaintiff in his hand, in which he s..vore the share he pur chased from Skelton, was a sixteenth Of the ticket, number r.gt;',.'Bo, because he bad found a memoran dum made in his own writing, during the time he Lad the ticket in his possession. Mr. HART and Mr. WILSON, Cotmsel for the De ivqidant, contended that there was no cause sliewn why the money shoutd be paid into Court. it could answer no ?urpose to. the Plaintiff, except he thought it might indeice the, Defendant to enter into a com promise. At the first .tnome.nt the Plaintiff might have brought an action at law. Why did he wait three years, alter he was apprised of the number being drawn, before he brought his bill of re covery, and . then not stir again for two years more !t must have been because lie knew his'ease was Elizabeth • 'hod another fat-tithe:4oler, was exa mined before the same-Magistrate, under more 3g . . gravated circumstances. ,Thesamelirl, Mark: 130 , , was the principal witness in this case. Shell" - known the Prisoner some months. On last Tins"- day she went, accompanied by Sarah Saint fanother girl not more than 14) to the place where the Di' goner lodged, in Wheeler -street, Spital-fields, ictiere they were met by Mrs. Wood's husband, who con," duded,them up stairs. Mrs. Wood soon appeared ; and, after the . usual farce of shuffling and dividing the cards, proceeded to relate the fortunate events which would happen to her ; she • said she was' cross the water, - which she had already done,'3nd that. she lived very near a corner house ; she wAO not to keep company with any boys till she was 11 or 20. Mrs. Wood said, that the person she lined with was her greatest enemy, and that she was 11 ° to' pay any attention to what she said, but treat lict, with contempt ; that she would have a good 1)07 band and many tine children : if she wanted het fortune told more certain by the planets, it would be half a-crown : she demanded and received a, shilLog for what she had already said. Sarah Saint, • who was with Mary Bell; had her, fortune told, which was something like that of the latter. The consequences of the frequent visits of thes e _girls and several otherS, to Mrs. Carr and Nl i r6 * Wood, began to be ver y ser i ous , w hi c h was tl,® cause of the present inquiry. firt or • The worthy Magistrate,' with his usua l fee— 7 and humanity, admonished, in the most salt-It al. ; manner, the conduct of the girls, and rec"'; mended. them to the serious attention of 113 L. parents; he at the same time reprobated the eon" duaof the prisoners, whoare both married women,. and have children of their own. They were amvided as rogues and va gabood s : i and committed to the House of C o rr e di on , till trig Sessions. The trierids- of the girls were held in recognilan cel for their appearance again st(heirs. DEC. 17.—0 n Saturday last a mei''' t choly affair took place at Cove, Cork, the parti al ' lars of which have b een re la te d as f o ll ow Thornhill came over fr om S p ik e -Una, - betwee n seven and eight o'cl oc k- on -1-ht - above morning , order to take in executi on the goods of one Buckiel d . rf for an alledged debt d ue t o hi m ; i n attemPti,9s'. which, he was - dri v e n . ou t o f t h e h ouse, w ith " 1-,. • party, by-Buckley and ,his fathily. Aft er t hi s Thorn" hill proceeded down to th e B arrac k s , a nd on his ifc. turn he was met by Buckl e y, w h o h a d a l arge sti c k ,. or stave, for the pu r p ose , as i s ailedged,of ato , Mg Thornhill, who, o n hi s approachinv, was c,le c sired by Thornhill t o k ee p otf; and Buckley o. complying,. thelormer shot at him with a pi sl° ,.: the contents of whi c h l o d ge d i n his. groin ; mediately fell, and •in a tew moments expired" I - Thornhill. now fled to a house in the n e ighbour - 1 0 %, loaded the pistol, and d e cl a r e d if Buckley's l'e°P' pressed any farther, be would fire upon thew; el Upon this an application was Made to Cale o Needham, of the garri son B a t ta li o n, w h o , will) al , : alacrity mid promptitud e , o rd ere d- a ser j eant a nd t`c file of men to take him i n t o custo dy, on w hose 0 1, 3 ; pearance Thornhill surr en d ere d, an d was lodged ' t , te file Barrack guard-r.c.Lyt On Sunday, Mr. 1 , (10 coroner, attended ; wh en a J uty b e i ng sworn, 00' .fearing viewed th e b o dy- o f t h e deceased, and , ~e) ` ..* ambled witnesses, r e t urne d a verditt, " that tbe ceased, Buckley, received-his d e a t h by a woul d a pistol-shot, ti re d a t hi m b y . Thornhill." 1'1i()1tl hill was escorted to C or k, an d l o d ge d i n the as.l'.or gaol ; there -to abide till b e t O oe . es his trial at the e suing Lent Assizes. T oo muc h pra i se cann ot bestowed on both the Magistrates of cQve tor t- h t,„ l condua• upon the above melancholy occasiorr,, Buckley has lett an .unh a ppy wife•andAhree chP" r ` , .. to bemoan his untim e ly fate. A few nights since, Ludiington house, in ham, Surrey, the seat of Wm. Irving, Ecl• broke open, and robbed of plate and other property to a considerable amount. • BIRTH.. ler On the Bth inst. at R egutas, the Lady of Thomas 1 ,4 ' 4 Dick, Esq. younger, of Fountain-Hall, of a Daughter. o f On the zth inst. at Conan-House Scotland, the Lady HeCtor M ac k enz i e, B art. o f Ga id Lady och, of a Son. r . On the 1 4 th i nst . at Ed in b urg h , tl - e Lady of Patr i c k T° tie, Esq. of a Son. On Monday, the Lady of Henry Davidson, Esq. of ford-square, of a Son. The same day, in Upper Berkeley-street, Mrs. J. F• mins, of a Son. On the lath inst. in tohn-street, Fitzroy-square, Lady of Captain John Bridges, of a Son. On Tuesday, at Sunninghill Park, 13erks, the Lady of Henry Crutchley, Lsq. of a Daughter. On the Bth inst. the R E A R Dr. William Brown, to 15V. beta, daughter of john Taylor, Esq. of Prestonpaus. . 7e On Tucsda-y se'imight, Groc.me, Es q . of ham-place, to Miss Mary Ingram, daughter of Mr. 1 " 611 Surgeon, of Steyning. ran - On Saturday List, at St. George's, H anover - snuar e. • F cis Hare Naylor, Esq. of 1 . 1 1e:be,..L-street, to Al:lria M e .7) i e widow of Lieutenant-Colonel Ridgeway Healey, late 0 1 Madras Establishment. On-the loth inst. at Mary-le-h one Ch urc h , Il en ry urY , Esq. Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, to Caroline• coed daughter of A. tV. 'lay lot,. Esq. of Herts. „ • On Wednesday; Mr. Geo rge Moreworre`, of l'ancras— r. Cheapside, to Ass E. P. harrow,. daughterof Air ',Uar ,° of Ikasinghall-street. //lit /). mJV On the •;th inst. Mary Sophia Vardon, wife of 1 11 ° — Vatdon, Esq. or St, lonti's-pl, Battersea Rise. t• On Wednesday the 710 i ns t. i n Green. Park-place ,, 131 Charles Searle, Esq. of St. 's;cor.ge's, near Bristol. On 1.-londay the kztli inst. at (isburr.'s hotel, Lt cideto Skelton, 01 the Roy;',- Navy, aged 27. , - c ost Lately, in the .!Ist year of hi s age , t h e !t ut/. 14. of BAber,..o- place, Gxeat Waldingtield, On the 9:11 inst. at Glasgov.-, Mr. David Allison, one,/ the Teachers and present , Rr:".tor of the Grammar Scho ol Glasgow. ' On the IStli inst. at Damirill, Cheshire, Theln 3 s co(' bett, Esq., in the 79th year of his .t.,;e. o „, lotto n Su:lday morning last, M rs . Butcher, w `l ife ; • DttiOier, Esq. of London bridge Tor' On Monday, at WitHant R,w's, Esq. Page-green. tetiliam, Miss Sarah Row, aged r - A tow days silee, Nliss i\ , !•4xwell, eldest ( laughter 0 1. - Maxwell, Esq. of Rurnbuldsvr)ko. Last week., at Knareshwony,ll, :,g,( l , $ . l after a lirt4er ir o l: illness, Mrs. Bruacdoelt wife of Mr. 13,0,4beit, • that !;lace.' ; Lately, William Da n iel, Efiq. of Lyme R eg is, •"" 11:6 County of Dorset. _ • — I - HIGH WATER AT LONDON 131tIDGE TO-11t) ROW. 6. N'orning, t min. aft e r 6. Af ternoon, 13 min.r • - IA)N DON: Printed by R ICHARD 114 ait O. 4, Martlett,Lourt. flow-street; and pubdshc - 1 by WIL LIAM ARMICIR SCRIPPS,- South Molten street, Grosvenor-vp u , ca ,e s ::+. the SuN-Oky-cg N. 1 17 Sfrand ; where Advelt•iYerieti,'Or*Ts tpt tl a Paocr,• 1 ct(frir .for tbv Editor, &c, (Dost-pgica must be addretsod. . bad. ?he court .tiCk . inStanee would Order; money to be paid into Court to tie up the lidnds Of 'a De fendant, and induce him to enter Into a 64!pro wise, It was not preteuded to •be said that the. money was not as safe ,in the handsof the Defend ant as in tbose of the Accmibiant-deneral. The Plaintiff never could get relief by his bill in that Court.,, for the minute the ticket was drawn, the amount of the prize became money, had and .re ceived, and, as such, it was only, yecoverable in a Court of Conimon Law. If the Court refused this !notion, he miTht bring his anion to-morrow. It was the first time they had ever heard of money being asked to be paid into Court, because the De fendant must be a trustee to some peiSon: Under every c4currlstance, they felt confident his- Lordship. would refuse the motion. , Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY replied-in a speech replete wit h argument. The Lotto CHANCELLOR observed, that he con sidered the case as perfettly cognizable by a Court of Equity ; even in a Court of Law cdgnizance might be taken of it ; for so far back as the reign of William the Third, negociable securities came under the jurisdittion of Courts of Law ; and if it were proved that Skelton never bad a. share of the ticket, number 26,880, and had that of 26,280, with the circumstance of the. Defendant having de stroyed all evidence, by the destruCtion of the share which .lie paid on the tali of May, he did not be lieve there was a Jury in the world that would not give a verdict for the Plaintiff. Ifthis was the case in a Court of Law, what could prevent a Court of Equity from having juriAiaion, whet it was never disputed that they had ? But, according to the. rules of the Court, whatever might be its opinion on the hearing, and in giving a decree, yet when the Defendant did not admit sufficient in his "an- saver to warrant the order for the payment of the money into Court, the Court could not comply with the application, whatever it night do on the hearing of the cause. • . The motion was of course dismissed. DECEMBER "2 I. NE LAND V. CLARK. This was• a motion for leave to make exceptions to the report of a Master, and originated in the f01..' lowing circumstances :—A person of the name of Robert Robinson had conic to London in a low station of life, and by dint of indhstry had atcumu kited a property to the amount of 10,0001. stock in the funds. Having no relatives, as far'as he knew,. he lelt.his funded property, as a kind of patriotic_ gift, to Government, to be employed.for the liqui dation of the national debt, and appointed the Bank of England his executors. At the same-time he left his household furniture, and certain other personal property, to a - Mrs.' Clarke. It so hap pened, however, that the dividends upon his stock had been suffered to accumulate for three years, and amounted to the sum of 12001. to which also, under the will of the deceased, Mrs. Clark laid claim.— This, however, was tesisted on the-part of the Bank • by the late Mr. Abraham Newland, who was ap pdinted acting executor, and it was decided by the Court that Mrs. Clark bad no claims under the will tb this sum of 13,0001. Matters being in this situation, and no relatives of the deceased appearing, the Attorney-General laid claim to this property, on. the part of the Crown, as ultimus haeres ; but, in the mean while, some persons in Cumberland had claimed as being the nearest relatives of the deceased, and the Attorney-General had taken se veral steps for establishing the rights of the Crown, such as procuring copies of the proceedings of Court, &e. in the Mihtet's Office, the expellee attending which had amounted to 401. These persons in Cum berland having established their relationship, and this sum of 401. incurred as the expellee of the proceedings, on the part of the Crown;was claimed to be paid out of the original' sum of 1:001. which now tell to these distant relatives in Cumberland. This claim, however,, was refused by the Master; and Mr. ALEXANDER, for the . Attorney General, now prayed for leave to make exceptions to. the Master's report, on the ground thit the Attorney General had only taken those steps which were pro per and necessary in virtue of his office, and that it was only reasonable that the expellees should be paid out of the fund which was claimed. Mr. BELL resisted this, on the ground of the hardship of depriving these poor people in Cumber land of any of the property which had thus fallen to them. Mr. ALEXANDER contended, that there was no hardship at all in defraying, out of the fund itself, those expences which the Crown had incurred be fore the rightful heirs had established their claim. He believed his Learned Ft fiend's ideas or riches and poverty had greatly altered since he left Cumber land, it those were to be called poor people or pau pers in that part .of the country, who had ►hus become the unexpected heirs of a property which to them twist be so considerable. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought, that in this case there was no occasion for incurring add►tional ex pellee, by bringing forward exceptions to thereport. He himself would look into the report, and, after conferring with the Master, would give his decision ou the subject. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 20. PF:KK.rf V. 'I it lIIIIF.Y. This was an action ut trover respecting a consider able quantity of hops, which though it lasted froth ten in the morning till five in the evening, may be substantially stated in a few lines. Hep{elm), a bankrupt, had, previous to his insol vency, employed one Coombe, a money raiser, to whom lie was led by an advertisement, under the name of Humphries, to procure money for him by discounting. hills. For this purpose Coombe resort ed to a linen-draper of the name of Barber ; to Messrs. Fournier, Gore, and Co. Cheapside ; and to Pekket, the Plaintiff, a warehouseman. Bills were discounted by them to the amount of more than a thousand pounds ; and in the three transalions, goods were furnished by the discounters, irr part, instead of money, which goods Coombe disposed of.as he best could. A a collateral security for the money thus raised on Hepleton's bills, hops, to a large, amount, were consigned by Hepleton to Cootn►be, and by Coombe to the discounters. These hops were lodged in the warehouse of the Plaintiff Pekket, who, as already :stated, was himSert ntye 'Of t he discounteN. When Hepleton becaMe bankrupt, his aiEtignees . . - :ontrived to get pOssessiOn of the hops, and sold them. On this account Pekket brought his thien kl ii.inst the assignees, as having a lien o n the goods, tri his character of warehouseman, and as being part proprietor, besides being answerable to the other discounters. The defence was, that the bills were given on accontit of an usurious transa&ion, and that some of thein had been drawn within two months of Hepleton's ad of bankruptcy, the period within which Sir Samuel Romiily's Ad confines the non . ettediveness of iransadions with bankrupts. The JUDGE, from the evidence of Coombe him self, was disposed to think that his tiansadions with the bankrupt were usur is, but although there was something aukw the mode of dealing of the discounters, • ought it too much to say, •that . they had been gui of usury, and there the defence failed. It appeared too, that all the collateral secu rities had been given previous 'to, the two months before the a& of bankruptcy, and there also, there fore, the defence failed. Verdid for the Plaintiff— Damages.lo3ol. DECEMBER 21. LEE CAss. This was an a&ion brought by the Assignees of Messrs. William and Robert Easton,, Bankrupts, against the Defendant, upon the statute of usury, to- recover penallies in Areblf, the amotmt upon three several bills of exchange, discounted •by the Plaintiff for the Bankrupts, and upon which it was charged he had taken more than the legal interest. Mr. Williatn Easton, one of the Bankrupts stated, that he, in partnership with his nephew Robert, had carried on the business of Scotch warehouse men, and was acquainted with the Defendant. On the 21st of August, in the last year, he applied to him to, let him have his - acceptance, at a short date, for a bill which had been drawn by his house on, and accepted by, Messrs. Hyam, Coan, and Co. at six months' date, from the 21st of August, for 9371. 10s. This the Defendant declined to do, but .offered to discount his bill upon the same terms he had done before with one in the month of April. These terms were the payment of the legal discount, together with three and a half per cent. as a pre-: mium for the Defendant's guaranteeing the pay-. ment of the bill by the acceptor. With these terms he complied. Lie said he wished the bill to begua ranteed, but it was for the purpose of getting the bill discounted ; he had no doubt whatever of the solvency of the acceptors. He received a letter from the Defendant, guaranteeing the payment, but could not tell what was become of it, as the note being paid, it became useless. The discount was 'dahlia ed at the time he received the money for the bill; He paid the amount of the guarantee, amounth q , to 361. 16s. in Bank' notes, either the same day, or the next. It•was a separate transaElion. On the 4th of September following, he got an acceptance of his.draft on Mendez De Costa, at three Months after date, for 4091. 1 ts. ; on the 7th, he took it to the Defendant, who offered to discount it, upon receiving one and a quarter per cent. to guarantee it ; to this he agreed, and the discount was according ly deduded, and on the next day he paid 51. 2,5. for the guarantees of --The letter for thic Fin-pose, was, in the same manner, .and for the same reason, lost, as the former. On the 14th of November, in the same year, he had an acceptance of his draft, on Messrs. Hardy, Otley,- and Co. at six months after date, for t 661. 45.—This he took to the Defendant, and wanted him to guarantee it for tbe purpose of get ting it discounted. Besides the discount, he paid three and a half for the guaranteeing of it, in bank notes, amounting to 51.. !Gs: ; he had no fear whatever as to the payment of any of the three notes. Upon the cross-examination, the Witness said he had been intimate with, the Defendant since 1803 ; that he had dealings with him to a con siderable amount ; and that he had discounted bills for him which he refused to guarantee, to the amount of 20001. and upwards. The proposal Itl the ' first instance had come from - the Witness, and was a tong fide transaction, and not colourable. ' Mr. Serjeanr COCKELL, for the Defendant, ad dressed the Jury, without calling any witnesses, in sisting on the fairness of *the transaction, and that the Defendant was justifiable in taking compensa tion for the risk he ran by exonerating the Bank rupt, and which bad nothing whatever to do with the discounting of the notes. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE left it to the Jury to decide, whether, by the custom of Merchants, the Defendant was at all justifiable in charging for the guarantee ? and if so to what amount ? or whether, under the fasts in the case, it WM not taking colour ably more for the use of money, than the law would allow under the denomination of discount ? The Jury retired for a considerable length of time, and at last brought in a verdid for the Plaintiff, upon rhe first bill, for 9a71. I us. and upon the last for 1661. 4s. POLICE. FORTUNE-TELLING. - Woßsutr-STiteEt.—Susannoh Carr was yester day brought by Armstrong, the Officer, before Jo- SENI AIOSEIZ, Esq. charged with having pretended to tell the fortune of several young girls. She has been brought in custody to this Office several times 011 similar charges. _ Stban Sch•Aield, a pretty girl, about sixteen years of age, went, about a month ago, to the lodgings 'of the Prisoner, in Webbe-square, Shorc-ditch, and requested to have her fortune told. Mrs. Carr pro duced a pack of cards, which she shuffled, and di vided into several parcels, and said, the witness would have some trouble very soon, but it would end to her satistaaion—that she would be married before she was nineteen, and would have nine chil dren, _all boys—that her husband would, be a tail thin young man, of darkish complexion. Mary Bell, another good-looking girl, who ap-• pearcd to be about the same age, said, that she was with Susan Schofield When she had her fortune told, was also another girl. Mrs. Carr told all their fortune, after going through a deal of ceremony with _thit,CarOs.. She told this girl, that she would haVe a - great many children, all of whom would be very like their father. The girl paid is. for telling their fOrtunes • •